COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Subsidiarity Grid Accompanying the document Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the protection of animals during transport and related operations, amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005
Date: 2023-12-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety, European Commission
Subjects: animal welfare, economic activity, international transport, intra-EU transport, protection of animals, transport of animals, veterinary inspection

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 7.12.2023  SWD(2023) 399 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Subsidiarity Grid Accompanying the document Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the protection of animals during transport and related operations, amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 {COM(2023) 770 final} - {SEC(2023) 397 final} - {SWD(2023) 401 final} - {SWD(2023) 402 final}  
 
 
Subsidiarity Grid  

(for the revision of the EU legislation on the protection of animals during 
transport) 

1.  Can the Union act? What is the legal basis and competence of the Unions’ intended action? 

1.1 Which article(s) of the Treaty are used to support the legislative proposal or policy initiative? 

The legal bases of the legislative proposal are Article 43 and 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of 
the European Union (TFEU).  
–  Article  43  provides  the  basis  for  the  EU  legislative  measures  on  the  Common  Agricultural  Policy, 
qualified by the Lisbon Treaty as shared competence between the EU and its Member States.  
–  Article 114  provides  the  legal  basis  for  the  establishment  and  functioning  of  the  internal market 
and the approximation of provisions laid down by the law, regulation or administrative actions in this 
respect.  

1.2 Is the Union competence represented by this Treaty article exclusive, shared or supporting in 
nature? 

In the case of animal welfare legislation, the Union’s competence is shared with the Member States. 

2.  Subsidiarity Principle: Why should the EU act? 

2.1 Does the proposal fulfil the procedural requirements of Protocol No. 21: 

-  Has there been a wide consultation before proposing the act? 
- 

Is  there  a  detailed  statement  with  qualitative  and,  where  possible,  quantitative 
indicators  allowing  an  appraisal  of  whether  the  action  can  best  be  achieved  at  Union 
level? 

The impact assessment report takes into account the input from a range of stakeholder consultation 
activities: 
- 

an Inception Impact Assessment2 was open for feedback from 6 July 2021 until 24 August 2021 
and received a total of 983 feedback; 
a public consultation3 was held from 15 October 2021 until 21 January 2022 with almost 60 000 
responses; 
the Commission organised a one-day conference on 9 December 20214 which included one panel 
on the specific challenges of animal welfare during transport (Panel 3).  
as part of the external study carried out to support the impact assessment, various targeted 
consultation activities have been carried out, including: 

- 

- 

- 

- 

9 exploratory interviews and  43 interviews for the six case studies; 

1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12016E/PRO/02&from=EN  
2 Available on the European Commission Have Your Say platform : https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-
regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12950-Animal-welfare-revision-of-EU-legislation_en  
3 Available on the European Commission Have Your Say platform : https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-
regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12950-Animal-welfare-revision-of-EU-legislation/public-consultation_en 
4 European Commission, EU Animal welfare today & tomorrow, an opportunity for stakeholders to validate the 
preliminary findings of the Fitness Check of the current EU animal welfare legislation. 

1 

 
 
 
 
-  one survey which gathered 68 responses; 
- 

two focus groups and one workshop which brough together a total of 130 participants. 

- 

The Commission also created a thematic sub-group of experts on the protection of animals 
during transport under the EU animal welfare platform who met 10 times since March 2022; 
- 
Finally, the Commission met with key stakeholders in regular ad-hoc meetings. 
Further details on these activities are outlined in the impact assessment report (Annex 2) 
Finally, the Eurobarometer on the Attitudes of Europeans towards animal welfare was published in 
20235, following the 2005 and 2015 publications6. 

The explanatory memorandum and the impact assessment report contain a section on the principle 
of subsidiarity, see replies to question 2.2 below. 

2.2 Does  the  explanatory  memorandum  (and  any 

impact  assessment)  accompanying  the 
Commission’s  proposal  contain  an  adequate  justification  regarding  the  conformity  with  the 
principle of subsidiarity? 

Animal transport is often of a cross-border nature. 1.4 billion animals are transported each year with 
a cross-border movement within the EU Member States. Therefore, it affects the functioning of the 
internal market and the identified animal welfare problems including their underlying drivers occur 
across the EU, albeit to a different degree in different Member States. Finally, the identified animal 
welfare problems have transboundary consequences including threats to public health, such as AMR. 

Action taken at national level is not expected to lead to considerably improved animal welfare and 
would only partially be able to meet citizens’ concerns. It is very unlikely that 27 Member States 
would legislate in a coherent way on the animal welfare requirements linked to transport given the 
already existing regulatory fragmentation. Action at national level would lead to further 
fragmentation of requirements and increased differences in the levels of animal welfare between EU 
Member States. Although current EU rules on protection of animals during transport have brought 
some harmonisation to the sector, Member States continue to adopt their own differing rules on the 
transportation of animals. Member States also apply certain provisions and enforce rules differently, 
thereby creating obstacles to the smooth functioning of the internal market. Furthermore, national 
rules cannot apply to operators from other Member States and therefore, thereby rendering cross-
border movements a driver for lower animal welfare standards. 

Animal welfare requirements linked to transport at EU level require a harmonised approach and thus 
can effectively be regulated at EU level. With a homogenous set of rules, the revision would provide 
uniform and clearer requirements for the transport of animals and a better use available of 
technologies. The revision would thus ensure a level-playing field for operators within the single 
market, facilitate intra-EU trade of animals and provide more efficient regulatory oversight. Hence, 
the high EU standards on animal welfare would be more easily and coherently promoted at the 
global level. 

5 European Commission, Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety, Attitudes of Europeans towards 
animal welfare – Report, Publications Office of the European Union, 2023. 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2875/872312. 
6 European Commission, Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety, Attitudes of EU Citizens towards 
Animal Welfare - report, European Commission, 2015, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2875/884639; European 
Commission, Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety, Attitudes of consumers towards the welfare of 
farmed animals, European Commission, 2005, Attitudes of Europeans towards Animal Welfare - June 2005 - - 
Eurobarometer survey (europa.eu) 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Considering  these  elements,  EU  action  is  justified:  it  would  achieve  a  consistent  approach  more 
effectively and efficiently than Member States acting independently. 

2.3 Based  on  the  answers  to  the  questions  below,  can  the  objectives  of  the  proposed  action  be 

achieved sufficiently by the Member States acting alone (necessity for EU action)? 

Measures only adopted at national level would result in Member States having their own, differing 
legislation which would lead to further fragmentation and distortions of competition and therefore 
injure  the  single  market.  Additionally,  provisions  at  European  scale  will  more  effectively  match 
citizens' expectations and lower the risk of zoonosis and antibiotic resistance. 

(a)  Are  there  significant/appreciable  transnational/cross-border  aspects  to  the  problems  being 

tackled? Have these been quantified? 

The  identified  animal  welfare  problems  and  their  underlying  drivers  occur  across  the  EU.  Animal 
transport is often of a cross-border nature. 1.4 billion animals are transported each year with a cross-
border movement within the EU Member States.  
Furthermore,  national  rules  cannot  apply  to  operators  from  other  Member  States  and  therefore, 
cross-border movements would be a driver for lower animal welfare standards.  
Finally, the identified animal welfare problems have transboundary  consequences including threats 
to public health, such as AMR.  
The problems and drivers have been quantified in the impact assessment to the extent possible. In 
any event, the drivers and problems will likely continue to grow. 

(b)  Would national action or the absence of the EU level action conflict with core objectives of 

the Treaty7 or significantly damage the interests of other Member States? 

Differing legislation adopted at national level has resulted – and will continue to result – in a further 
partitioning of the  internal  market  and  uneven  playing  field,  which  jeopardizes  the  integrity  of the 
internal market. Although current EU rules on protection of animals during transport have brought 
some harmonisation to the sector, Member States continue to adopt their own differing rules on the 
transportation  of  animals,  sometimes  stricter  than  the  current  EU  legislation.  Member  States  also 
apply  certain  provisions  and  enforce  rules  differently,  thereby  creating  obstacles  to  the  smooth 
functioning of the internal market. Furthermore, national rules cannot apply to operators from other 
Member  States.  Therefore,  cross-border  movements  would  be  a  driver  for  lower  animal  welfare 
standards. 

(c)  To  what  extent  do  Member  States  have  the  ability  or  possibility  to  enact  appropriate 

measures? 

Currently,  rules  on  the  protection  of  animals  during  transport  are  already  harmonised  by  Council 
Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport. The 
legislation  leaves  sufficient  some  room  for  Member States  to adapt  to  their  own  national/regional 
situation, including allowing for stricter national rules to apply (within certain limitations). 

(d)  How  does  the  problem  and  its  causes  (e.g.  negative  externalities,  spill-over  effects)  vary 

across the national, regional and local levels of the EU? 

The identified animal welfare problems arising from their transport under sub-optimal conditions, 

7 https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/eu-in-brief_en  

3 

 
 
 
the limited requirements to protect cats and dogs during transport, as well as the problems linked to 
the low uptake of new technologies, all occur across the EU, albeit to a different degree in different 
Member States (affecting remote, rural areas more than urban areas). The variations in the intensity 
of these problems are explained by the underlying regulatory drivers. 
There is evidence that differences in implementation and enforcement still create obstacles to 
effective harmonisation, thus to the achievement of comparable levels of animal welfare. In addition, 
diverging measures in Member States or regions are in place for the trade concerning cats and dogs, 
and other animal transports, also leading to different levels of animal welfare. 

(e)  Is the problem widespread across the EU or limited to a few Member States? 

The problems are affecting all Member States albeit to a different extent. 

(f)  Are Member States overstretched in achieving the objectives of the planned measure? 

There  is  evidence  that  the  terms  used  in  the  Transport  Regulation  are  not  defined  and  are 
interpreted differently, hampering coherent enforcement. This is further aggravated by insufficient 
common  definitions.  Furthermore,  although  the  Official  Controls  Regulation  provides  for  a  more 
harmonised approach, the risk-based approach used for official controls and the  different  levels of 
resources that Member States put into such controls contribute to the variations in enforcement. 
Thus, the revision seeks to bring animal welfare requirements closer to the latest scientific evidence 
and make rules easier to enforce, including through digitalisation. 

(g)  How  do  the  views/preferred  courses  of  action  of  national,  regional  and  local  authorities 

differ across the EU? 

There  is  an  overall  consensus  among  competent  authorities  regarding  the  adequacy  of  identified 
animal welfare  problems, the  objectives  specified by the initiative  and the necessity to  streamline, 
clarify and extend the current legislative framework. 
Diverging views, however, were expressed by Member States: some pointed to potential challenges 
with  the  limits  of  journey  times  for  slaughter  due  to  a  less  dense  slaughterhouse  network.  Also, 
specific  concerns  were  highlighted  by  another  Member  State,  since  any  limitation  would  have 
important economic consequences for the dairy sector, which relies on transport of calves by ferry 
based on roll-on roll-off, over more than 19h. In addition, other Member States, who are among the 
main beneficiary countries of calves transported on long journeys, would also be impacted as their 
farming sector could not satisfy the national market demand. Within the Public Consultation, 85% of 
participating  local  authorities  were  in  favour  of  maximum  journey  times  for  animal  transport 
(compared to 95,4%  of the  total number of respondents).  Moreover,  Southern Member States  are 
generally more concerned by restrictions on hot temperatures as they will be more impacted. They 
often flag the logistical challenges linked to transporting live animals by night.  

2.4 Based  on  the  answer  to  the  questions  below,  can  the  objectives  of  the  proposed  action  be 
better achieved at Union level by reason of scale or effects of that action (EU added value)? 

Common, updated European standards for animal welfare during transport seek to foster sustainable 
agricultural  and  food  production,  avoid  distortions  of  the  internal  market,  and  meet  societal 
expectations  and  ethical  concerns.  In  addition,  they  seek  to  ensure  improved  legal  clarity  while 
reducing  administrative  burdens  for  companies  and  authorities  and  hence  improve  efficiency  and 
attractiveness of the EU system. 

4 

 
 
 
(a)  Are there clear benefits from EU level action?  

The overall objectives to contribute to the harmonisation of the implementation and enforcement of 
common EU requirements, thus contributing to a smoother functioning of the internal market and a 
higher level of animal welfare. The revision also seeks to address citizens’ concerns and contribute to 
the sustainability of food systems. 

(b)  Are there economies of scale? Can the objectives be met more efficiently at EU level (larger 

benefits per unit cost)? Will the functioning of the internal market be improved? 

The functioning of the internal market be improved. Having updated common provisions at European 
level will reduce partitioning of the internal market through differing national legislation and remove 
obstacles linked to the diverging implementation and enforcement of the current EU requirements, 
which jeopardizes the integrity of the internal market.  

(c)  What  are  the  benefits  in  replacing  different  national  policies  and  rules  with  a  more 

homogenous policy approach? 

The revision will replace existing Union legislation and seeks to harmonize with a more homogenous 
set of  rules  on EU  level  the  additional  national  requirements  that  have  been  put  in  place over  the 
past years. With a more homogenous set of rules on EU level, the intra-EU trade of animals and food 
of animal origin would be facilitated. Hence, the internal market would be improved, and the EU high 
values on animal welfare would be more easily promoted at global level 

(d)  Do  the  benefits  of  EU-level  action outweigh  the  loss of  competence  of  the  Member  States 
and  the  local and  regional  authorities  (beyond  the  costs  and  benefits of  acting  at  national, 
regional and local levels)? 

The proposal does not inflict on the local, regional and national authorities’ competence on how to 
organise and perform inspections to ensure compliance with the animal welfare rules as the Member 
States see fit, pursuant to the Official Controls Regulation. 

(e)  Will there be improved legal clarity for those having to implement the legislation? 

Currently,  some  provisions  of  the  existing  legislation  are  vague  and  not  sufficient,  thus  subject  to 
incoherent  implementation  and  enforcement.  In  addition,  species-specific  provisions  of  several 
species are lacking in the case of transport, such as farmed fish and dogs and cats. Existing legislation 
lags  behind  scientific  developments  in  animal welfare.  The  current  proposal  seeks to  correct  these 
weaknesses. 

3.  Proportionality: How the EU should act 

3.1  Does  the  explanatory  memorandum  (and  any  impact  assessment)  accompanying  the 
Commission’s proposal contain an adequate justification regarding the proportionality of the 
proposal  and  a  statement  allowing  appraisal  of  the  compliance  of  the  proposal  with  the 
principle of proportionality? 

Yes,  the  explanatory memorandum of the legislative proposal contains  justifications as regards the 
proportionality of the measures. The comparison of the options in the impact assessment (section 7) 
is also performed in terms of proportionality.  

The proposal lays down animal welfare rules on protection of animals during transport, striving for a 
balanced and proportionate impact following the results of the impact assessment. This is the case of 

5 

 
 
 
exporting  to  third  countries  and  requiring  further  conditions:  these  aim  to  improve  the  welfare  of 
animals while at the same time ensuring the continuation of business. A similar approach has been 
taken  with  regards  to  journey  times  and  finding  a  proportionate  journey  length  allowing  for  the 
transport of animals to continue happening while limiting it in a way that ensures a better welfare for 
the animals transported.  
In the case of transport during high or low temperatures, proportionate mitigation measures are in 
place  to  allow  the  transport  without  hindering  the  welfare  of  the  animals  transported,  e.g. 
transporting during the night.   
The proposal of Regulation on transport foresees, in addition, adequate transition periods in order to 
allow  the  different  actors  and  Member  States  to  adapt  gradually  to  the  new  requirements  and 
obligations. This is the case for the preferred measures related to journey times, space allowances, 
exports  and  real  time  positioning  available  to  competent  authorities  (5  years);  journey  times  for 
vulnerable unweaned animals (5 years) and new specific rules on the transport of cats and dogs (3 
years).   

3.2 Based on the answers to the questions below and information available from any impact 
assessment, the explanatory memorandum or other sources, is the proposed action an 
appropriate way to achieve the intended objectives? 

The initiative does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the revision and is 
appropriate to achieve them. The choice of the legal instrument is justified. 

(a)  Is the initiative limited to those aspects that Member States cannot achieve satisfactorily on 

their own, and where the Union can do better? 

EU intervention would provide uniform rules for the protection of animals during transport. 
Harmonised EU-wide rules would ensure a level-playing field for operators within the single market 
and a more efficient enforcement. National action would otherwise not be sufficient to achieve those 
objectives in a satisfactory way. Thus the initiative does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve 
the objectives of the revision. 

(b)  Is the form of Union action (choice of instrument) justified, as simple as possible, and 

coherent with the satisfactory achievement of, and ensuring compliance with the objectives 
pursued (e.g. choice between regulation, (framework) directive, recommendation, or 
alternative regulatory methods such as co-legislation, etc.)? 

A Regulation has been chosen as instrument, also replacing an existing Regulation. As the transport 
of animals is of a transboundary nature, the revision consists of fully harmonized, stricter and clearer 
requirements, with rules facilitating enforcement, that will apply across the EU. A Regulation appears 
to be the most appropriate instrument of the planned revision to achieve a uniform implementation 
and enforcement. A Directive would require to be transposed into national rules which would likely 
not  as  efficiently  address  the  drivers  related  to  diverging  interpretation,  implementation  and 
enforcement of EU requirements. 

(c)  Does the Union action leave as much scope for national decision as possible while achieving 
satisfactorily the objectives set? (e.g. is it possible to limit the European action to minimum 
standards or use a less stringent policy instrument og approach?) 

Although the proposal sets out common objectives and requirements, it leaves some room for 
Member States to adapt to their own national/regional situation, including allowing for stricter 
national rules to apply (within certain limitations). 

(d)  Does the initiative create financial or administrative cost for the Union, national 

6 

 
 
governments, regional or local authorities, economic operators or citizens? Are these costs 
commensurate with the objective to be achieved? 

As described in more detail in Annex 3 of the impact assessment report, competent authorities will 
need  to  carry  out  a  number  of  new  procedures.  The  monitoring  data  received  by  competent 
authorities  from  operators  will  help  authorities  to  better  target  their  controls  and  inspections  and 
thus  make  savings.  The  digitalisation  of  the  whole  process  is  expected  to  reduce  the  current 
paperwork and to strengthen the official controls.  
Road transporters will need to reorganise their journey planning and contracts to comply with the 
new  requirements  on  journey  times,  space  allowances  and  providing  real-time  data  access  to 
authorities,  including  for  exports  and  for  vulnerable  animals,  and  hot  temperatures.  Some  sea 
transporters will have to upgrade or replace their vessels and register these under another flag, to 
meet  updated  requirements.  Sea  transporters  will  also  need  to  hire  a  person  who  has  followed 
specific  trainings  on  animal  welfare  (‘animal  welfare  officer’)  to  accompany  the  crew  on  board  in 
order to take appropriate measures to safeguard the welfare of animals.  Additionally, transporters 
of cats and dogs will have to upgrade their vehicles and have a veterinarian perform health checks 
before any transport. 
The impact assessment has shown that the various environmental and social benefits created by the 
measures foreseen, including enhanced resilience of production systems, reduced health risks (AMR, 
zoonoses) as well as lower environmental contamination, render the associated costs commensurate 
with the main objective to contribute to sustainable agricultural and food production by ensuring a 
higher level of animal welfare. 

(e)  While respecting the Union law, have special circumstances applying in individual Member 

States been taken into account? 

While no derogations from the common rules have been granted to specific Member States, the 
geographical localisation of each region and country concerned have been taken into account when 
formulating the policy options (e.g. the situation of remote or insular areas in relation to the rules on 
animal transports). For example, the rule according to which, for transport of live animals, time spent 
on livestock vessels does not count as journey time and the derogation of the 9 h journey time to a 
slaughterhouse some areas where the network of slaughterhouse is not enough dense (e.g; Finland 
and Greece); 

7